‘There is no doubt that a drawbridge existed at Farnham Castle.’

University Degree Architecture, Building and Planning

Farnham Castle Investigation

A GCSE History Coursework

Q

uestion One

‘There is no doubt that a drawbridge existed at Farnham Castle.’

Would you support this statement?
Do the sources agree with your findings? Are there any limitations?

Using the evidence that I have seen, I feel thoroughly prepared to say that yes, I would agree with the statement. The architecture of the keep and the records of the Bishop’s Rolls convince me that there was undoubtedly a drawbridge at Farnham Castle, connecting the Keep on the motte with the surrounding bailey.

In it’s current guise, the castle keep is entered from the south-east of the gatehouse, and where currently two flights of stairs approach the keep, and these can be seen from the courtyard neighbouring the entry. From the courtyard the architecture and structure of the stairs can be viewed, and it is this structure which throws first light on the possibility of a drawbridge. As Picture 1 shows, there are three distinct sections to the stairs. At the bottom, under the initial flight, there is original stone work, as there is underneath the uppermost flight. This shows that the stairs are part of the original Norman structure, and therefore any alterations would support the evidence for a drawbridge pit. This is topped with a thin layer of Tudor brickwork, of little significance other than decoration. However, the middle section is distinctly different, split very clearly. It is filled without any structure, and contains bricks of many types, from Norman grey stonework to later Tudor red brick. As there is no pattern to the structure, I believe that it is a filled-in pit, with out any other clear purpose. If it were constructed properly, then almost certainly more time would have been spent ensuring the strength of the brickwork, as the entry of the castle would need to be strong for defence. However, the filling-in is a Tudor addition. I know this because of the Tudor brickwork involved in the structure of the section. Therefore I hypothesise that a pit would have existed here until the 16th Century, as part of the drawbridge defences.

Going up the stairs and approaching the gatehouse, the walls on either side of the stairway are of on even height. On the left side (that of the courtyard) the wall is fairly low, but this does not appear to have been the original height. To the right side of the stairs, the wall is much higher, almost reaching the first storey of the gatehouse. It is likely that both walls were this tall, if not taller. Their probable height is indicated by a set of five corbels set into the gatehouse (Picture 3). These corbels would have held up a structure of some kind, possibly a room or a firing position. Other than this they could have been decorative, but as they are original, they are probably for defensive purposes.

On the north-eastern side of the stairs, there is more evidence in favour of a room. A cavity in the wall clearly displays the distinct line splitting the pit region with the two original sections of Norman stonework, which is shown in Picture 2. However, more importantly, there is also evidence of a pillar, which is positioned in such a way that I can strongly hypothesise that it was part of the supporting structure for a room or structure connecting with the gatehouse. It may well have braced the structure.

The evidence for a room is available. From Picture 3, we can see that there is a blocked up doorway, in original Norman style, in the gatehouse. This is in alignment with the corbels, and the brickwork of the blocking is Tudor, suggesting that this was another feature destroyed in the 16th Century. The doorway would have connected with the structure supported by the corbels. It is probable that the structure would have been a wooden room, made of a strong and durable wood such as English Oak or something similar. It is unlikely to have been made of stone because it would have been far too heavy to overhang, irrelevant of how much support there was. Also, whatever structure there was has now rotted away and does not exist. Stone does not rot away, and would have been hard to deposit somewhere else, unless it was used for the filling of the pit. However, this is still unlikely for weight reasons. The room would have needed to be very strong, as it would have been the most vulnerable part of the castle, and consequently English Oak, which is incredibly thick and durable, would have been used. The wooden room could have had two purposes, either as an additional firing position for bracketing, or as part of the drawbridge mechanism. Using a wooden room for bracketing would have been unpractical, as the ideal place for bracketing would be to the side of the gatehouse, covering anyone scaling the front wall. Therefore I surmise that the wooden structure was used for the purpose of holding or controlling the drawbridge mechanism.

How it did this is not clear, and there is very little evidence to suggest what part it played. The only clues that we have are the holes to either side of the blocked up doorway, where the room would have connected with the keep. Looking from the steps, there is an arrow slit to the right, and another hole that is broader and shorter. Picture 4 displays this. While the arrow slit is clearly positioned to defend the gatehouse, the purpose of other the hole is unclear. It is too broad to be an arrow slit, as there is a higher chance of penetration by arrows from attackers. It is possible that the hole could have been the feeder for a chain of the drawbridge mechanism, but the wall on the north-eastern side of the stairway would have blocked it. The only way to bypass this would have been to have a hole in the wall, and there is no evidence to suggest there was one at any time. The other possibility is it was part of the support of the wooden room, but again the wall blocks this hypothesis. This would mean that any connection between the drawbridge and the wooden room would have to be through the room itself, probably through the bottom of the room. The chain however could not have lead through to the Bishop’s room behind, as the room is too narrow. This would lead me to believe that the mechanism was held within the wooden room, with the chain spooling in onto some kind of drum mounted in the room. This would have been operated manually by the castle’s inhabitants, as there is no other feasible means of power, for example water or wind, which had both been in use (although not in this context) across Europe. However, as I say, these forms of power were usually for wind or water mills, and not at all for a drawbridge mechanism.

Finally there is the historical evidence. At around the time that Farnham Castle was built, Britain was in a very unstable state of affairs. In the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, the Saxon peoples were still intent on recapturing the throne. This meant that most of the castles built in the period were primarily for defence. An essential feature of the defensive Norman Castles is a drawbridge, and it is unlikely that the castle would have been without a bridge. As the country settled down and imminent attack was less likely, the drawbridge became a less important part of the castle, until its removal during the Tudor period. This would tie in perfectly with my hypotheses.

The evidence that I have found leads me to hypothesise that there was a drawbridge at the entrance to the Keep at Farnham Castle, with a pit below, and a wooden room overlooking it to support the mechanism. The drawbridge would probably have been operated as the diagram shows, as my findings lead me to believe.

Three of my four sources agree with my findings, whilst the other summarily disputes the existence of a drawbridge at Farnham Castle. However, all four have limitations. One is a primary source, which is both good and bad, while two ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The first and foremost source is a section from the Bishop’s Rolls, covering the years 1208 to 1292. There is a section containing direct evidence of ‘the bridge leading to the castle,’ stating that there was a new bridge built outside the keep in 1217 that was later supported by a pillar. This is a primary source and is therefore very valuable. Frequently the rolls also relate to the ‘mantle,’ possibly the wooden structure. There is also reference to a pillar, possibly placed in the pit to support the drawbridge and/or mechanism.

However, there are a number of limitations in the information it gives. Firstly, the original rolls were written in Latin, which is very tricky to translate, and there may have been some incorrect translation of the text. Secondly, and most obviously, there is the fact that the original rolls are hand-written, and in a number of places there are a number of interpretations into the text. For example, in 1251 there is a reference to either ‘saucers’ or ‘salt cellars.’ Compounding this, there is a large amount of possible spelling errors in both original text and translation. A reference to a ‘polt,’ an unknown word, in 1266 is interpreted as ‘bolt,’ but in the context of the entry it may well have been ‘colt’ or ‘pork,’ as the entry refers to the carrying of pig meat to the Grand Hall in the keep. However, this does not detract from the fact that the Bishop’s rolls are a legal document, and would therefore be very accurate. Also, the fact that it contains only brief statements and entries means that it is entirely based on fact and not opinion or bias.

The second source is from an anonymous local historian in 1997, and thoroughly disagrees with my findings. Firstly, it makes the corbels’ purpose ‘decoration,’ something that I disagree with. In the position that they were they had to have been practical, because otherwise they made scaling the wall considerably easier. The corbels also are said to be incapable of supporting the wooden room. If the corbels were alone in supporting the room, this would be a true statement, but the historian fails to notice that the walls to either side of the pit could have been used to support the room as well, which makes supporting the structure perfectly feasible. Their arguments for the wooden room not being made of wood are impossible to back up, and English Oak would have made the room very well protected and very able to support a mechanism. The feature was not unusual or unique to Farnham. The historian remarks that the filled-in doorway was possibly just a window, but this would have made the Bishop’s Chamber incredibly cold, and it would have been a huge and unmistakable defensive weakness. Also:

“Evidence from the Bishop’s Rolls is very flimsy”

The Bishop’s Rolls do not give flimsy evidence as they continually refer to a bridge leading up to the gatehouse, and the pillar supporting the hypothetical wooden room.

In conclusion it would appear to me that the historian has made little or no attempt to research all of the evidence or take account of the structural features. Their anonymity means we know nothing about them - there is no evidence to suggest that they have ever visited the castle, let alone made an in-depth account. The historian’s words appear very unbalanced; there is very little evidence in their work, and it is very much more personal in its perspective, rather than factual description.

The plan of the castle, a top-down diagrammatic map, shows the age of many walls and foundations, including the gatehouse, stairs, and turrets. It is very limited as it is very sparsely annotated, labelling only a few of the more important sites on the site. However, the shadings (referring to the age of each part of the castle) are in keeping with my hypotheses. For example, most of the castle is built in the late 12th Century, yet the shading of the stairs conveys that the site of the pit was built up at a later date to the stairs and keep.

Finally there is an excerpt from the Keep’s own guidebook, by Mr. M. W. Thompson, a known historian. His testimony agrees with what I have found perfectly, making direct association to some of the points I have mentioned.

“There are frequent references to the bridge in the manorial accounts, while others to the ‘mantell’ probably refer to the projecting superstructure”

Although the source is secondary, much like that of the anonymous historian, the fact that the selection is from an official guidebook makes the source particularly trustworthy - a guidebook must be well researched to have any use to visitors. Therefore I believe this source to be fairly trustworthy. There are a few limitations to this however. It comes down to a lack of intricate detail – there is no reference to the working of the drawbridge, or the rectangular markings on the front of the gatehouse.

All in all the sources differ a lot in their opinions, with the Rolls being vague yet confirming the drawbridge’s existence, the guidebook being clear and particular in it’s view, and the anonymous quote being very one-sided and unaccommodating of the evidence against it. The plan, though poorly labelled, is accurate in the information it provides.

Q

uestion Two

‘Farnham Castle Keep was simply a place of defence.’

Would you support this statement?
Do the sources agree with your findings? Are there any limitations?

The defence of Farnham Castle was very important to the people who built and subsequently re-built it throughout the centuries, but it was not the only consideration that had to be accounted for in the designs. From what I can deduce, the castle also had domestic and storage roles through its time, and there is ample evidence to support this hypothesis.

Firstly, the historical background. At the time when the castle was built, the Norman invasion had just revolutionised the country, removing the Saxon monarchy. Castles were being built throughout the country in order to increase the defensive situation of the Normans. With there being a large chance of a Saxon uprising, the new sovereignty needed to install some stability in the country. Farnham Castle is a prime example of how this was carried out. As war continued into the Plantagenet rule, and the Wars of the Roses in the north, castles in the south of the country were becoming less used than their northern counterparts, but there was still an instability in Britain that left castles still as defensive outposts. However, this changed when the Tudor rule came, eliminating the instability of the country. As the country grew in this stability, castles evolved to take on a more domestic role, with more important buildings and facilities moving out into the bailey from their established positions in the keep; for example the Great Hall moved at Farnham Castle in this matter. The castle became a bishop’s palace, accustomed to royal and religious visits rather than armoured combat. Even in the Civil War the castle changed very little; and since then has not been repaired or amended.

The physical evidence at the site itself backs this up considerably. The Gatehouse is a prime example of the evolution from defence to domestic purpose. Inside there are high, steep stairs, incredibly hard for someone to climb, particularly in a suit of armour. The fact that they are spiral staircases (and therefore easier to defend than attack) also enforces the defensive attitude. Arrowslits giving view of the gatehouse approach and battlements made excellent firing positions, and the wooden room of which I have hypothesised could have housed extra arrowslits and murder holes in it’s defence.

The gatehouse itself and the corridor on immediate entry are equally well defended. At the entrance it is clear to see a drawbar hole, capable of locking a huge door and withstanding many attacks. If attackers got through this, there is a portcullis groove through which a portcullis (a huge iron gate with sharpened bars at its base) could have dropped, decimating soldiers on the offensive. Picture 5 shows that there is also a murder hole in the ceiling, through which boiling oil, urine, and rocks could have been poured or dropped. However, this is not the only apparent purpose of the gatehouse. It is also clear that the gatehouse served a domestic purpose as well. From the outside it is clear that there was once a large Tudor window on the first floor (Picture 3), something that is certainly not a good defensive proposition. At the back of the gatehouse and in Picture 6, two fireplaces, marked with the Bishop of Winchester’s insignia, can be seen, showing that the second floor was certainly the living quarters of the holders of that title whilst the castle was inhabited. The presence of two large windows confirms the domestic use of the gatehouse. As the room seems very small for such an important person, I can also hypothesise that the Bishop’s room would have stretched across the whole gatehouse.

The Tudor alterations confirm my belief that the stability during this period allowed for a more domestic attitude. There is an added room behind the original gatehouse, and there are lighting alcoves in the corridor. It is probable that the walkways to the Bishop’s room were covered, something inappropriate in a defensive castle. This shows an explicit move away from a defensive stronghold, administering a more homely attitude on the castle.

From the gatehouse, moving clockwise, you come across the West Turret. This turret was almost certainly a designated living quarters, not only in later centuries but also during the earlier Norman period. As Picture 7 demonstrates, there is a fireplace to one side of the turret, large enough to cover most domestic purposes, which has been later re-lined in red brick, probably during the extensive Tudor renovations. This would have given heat and light, as well as a place for cooking food and drying clothes. Behind the fireplace there are 3 sumps, which presumably held water drained from the roofs of the castle (Picture 8). The water from these sumps could have been used for a number of domestic purposes, including washing, cleaning, and drinking. The sumps are made from chalk, and as this is a non-toxic stone that filters water, it indicates that there would have been no problem in using it as a water supply. Finally, it is a long way from the toilet chutes on the other side of the castle, making it a more hygienic and more appealing place for living quarters to be situated.

This does not mean that the turret was purely domestic however; the very fact that it is a turret shows this – if it were purely defensive it would be set further back inside the castle. There is an arrowslit (an obvious defensive structure), and water, urine, or oil could have been boiled on the fire and thrown through an apparent window.

There is one anomaly in this turret however, and that is the apparent chute in the west corner, seen in Picture 9. It could have been a chute, a toilet, a doorway, or merely a section of wall knocked out by the Tudors in the renovation. However, a number of these can be eliminated by logic. Firstly, the toilet theory. In the position that it is, and the shape that it is, it is hard to hypothesise that this could have been a toilet. Firstly, it is simply too large. In such a vulnerable position, arrows and other projectiles could have been quite easily thrown through the gap in to the turret behind. It is too close to living and cooking space; even though this was built in the 11th Century, the builders would have found it unfeasible to have a source of bad smell (the foundation of blame for the Plague) directly adjacent to the domestic area. Also, the stone work beneath the ‘chute’ is not discoloured. On the other side of the castle the toilet chutes have left significant black stains down the castle walls (Picture 12), and here this is not apparent. The turret is in the ‘front’ of the castle, and therefore something as unsightly as toilets would have been placed ‘round the back’, as the appearance of the castle was vital throughout history. This is shown by a need to paint the fences white, noted in the Bishop’s Rolls of 1210.

Secondly, it could be a murder chute, for throwing and pouring various liquids and projectiles through, but this idea is restricted again by the size of the chute; it is simply far too large to be adequately defensive. It could possibly have been a doorway to an upper level, although this would have to have been made of wood, and there is no obvious place for a larger walkway or staircase to be supported from. It could have been a doorway to a wooden room, which is more workable in proportion, and this could have been used for bracketing and defending the battlements. A structure like the batter beneath it would have made this even more effective, allowing liquids and solids dropped from a room or chute to be projected across an attacking crowd, and making climbing more difficult.

This would allow me to surmise that the West Turret was used predominantly as a domestic turret, but so it was not a weak link in the defences, it had facilities to ensure it was not the first part of the castle to be overwhelmed by a lack of defence.

Next the visitor comes across the North Turret. This is immediately seen as a defensive position from its situation. It is far too small to be a living space for even the peasants of the castle, and far too close to the adjacent toilet chutes (in Picture 10) to be used for living in. It’s grand view of the curtain wall, which is shown in Picture 11, makes it an ideal firing position, given that the trees currently towering over would not have been there when the Castle was in general use. Compounding this is a drawbar hole, which would have been used to lock a door at the entrance to the turret, a certain defensive feature. However, the nod towards later domesticity is noted by the presence of walkways between the North and East Turrets.

The East Turret is very different to the other turrets and gatehouse in the respect that it has no majority of domestic or defensive features. This is due to its use as a storage facility. Surrounded on all sides by stone, there are no arrowslits or views by which attackers can be apprehended, and being too close to the toilet chutes and without any good size it is unlikely to have been used for domestic purposes. There is a fairly large drawbar hole at one side of an imposing doorway, suggesting that there was a substantial lock holding a heavy English Oak door in place. We know from entries in the Bishop’s Rolls that this turret was used for the storage of animal skins and meats, particularly pork. This would mean that instead of being used predominantly as an armoury it was used also to store domestic needs, such as food and hides.

There are three other assets that show the two sides to Farnham Castle: it’s situation, it’s ditch, and it’s central well shaft. The keep is traditionally positioned on high ground, vital for any castle or defensive point. This immediately shows that the castle must have been in some way defensive. The ditch, though very shallow, is a defensive, drawing attackers into an area where the batters can be used to full effect, and archers have easy shots on the offensive army. Finally, the keep is in a very defensive position. It is founded deep in the mound, and cannot therefore be undermined by the attackers. Its position in the centre of an excellent defence makes it a defensive stronghold. Also it held meats and other stores, in its cool, dark, and damp environment, where they would have kept for months. This mix of heavy defence and domestic features makes it an excellent place to withstand a siege. The cornerstones inside the well-shaft, which mark individual floors, can be seen in Picture 13)

From my substantial evidence I can quite easily deduce that Farnham Castle was never simply a place of defence. The castle has always accounted for a need for people to live within it, slowly evolving from a mainly defensive castle to become a home in the 16th and 17th centuries.

There are four sources associated with this question, and all four agree in some way. This is unfortunately marred by the fact that all four are limited in some way or another. The first source is an excerpt from the Bishops Rolls from the years 1210 to 1299, on the matter of fences and some domestic buildings on the castle grounds. Also included is a letter from an Arthur Oswald to a Reverend Huband, concerning an article in a magazine called Country Life; dated June 22nd 1934.

The second source is a long monologue from the Castle’s official guidebook by M. W. Thompson. Thirdly is an extract from a book called Farnham Castle, The Forgotten Years, by P. D. Brooks. Finally there is a print made from an engraving in this book, showing Farnham Castle in 1737.

The most reliable source I have backs up my hypotheses excellently. The Bishop’s Rolls contain many references to a wide range of domestic and defensive features and events at the Castle, and the excerpt in this case is no exception. The section on fences shows that great care was made to ensure that the ground surrounding the castle was well fenced, and that these fences were well maintained. This is the sign of a working farm, not an active military defence, and shows that the Castle spent due care on the farming side of things that would not be made, for example, at an army base.

“1210: Whitewashing fences.

1219: Hedges of the meadow enclosed.”

There follows a section on the garderobes and wardrobes of the castle, showing maintenance to a very domestic feature of the Keep.

“1266: Mending of the Garderobe of the Clerks 12d.”

This shows me that the toilets were more imperative to the Bishop than the turrets, which appear to receive very little maintenance during this extract. Also noted is the Tower in the centre, where “whitewashing [of] the rooms and walls” is the most extravagant work carried out, in 1278. The fact that some of the most important developments are domestically based (for example the “Bakehouse in Castle” that was built new in 1219) shows that in this, the 13th Century, domesticity was beginning to take precedent over defence at Farnham. The Bishop of Winchester was obviously keen to put his money into making his principal residence a more comfortable place to live.

The Bishop’s Rolls, as I have mentioned, are fairly reliable. Primarily, they constitute a legal document, which should be pure fact, unhindered by opinion and without bias. The length of the entries, which are far too short to have any opinion within them, backs this up. However, this distinct lack of length means that the entries are very vague, and there is not much information that can be gleaned from them. The Rolls were also originally written in Latin, a tricky dialect to translate, and as they were probably hand-written, the job of translation was probably very difficult. On top of this the English version uses some very literal translations, as can be seen here:

“1299: Mending … the paling round the Bishop’s grass.”

The ‘grass’ can conceivably be interpreted as the garden, or a specific plot of land.

My second source is an excerpt from the Castle’s guidebook, by M. W. Thompson, a local historian, which covers the castle between the 13th Century and the Civil War of the 18th. His work makes it very clear that his analysis leaves him in no doubt that Farnham Castle was used for many purposes in its history. This is made clear by this quote:

“Thirteenth to Fifteenth Centuries:

‘The Castle evidently combined the qualities of a large farm with a large country house.’”

This is a very strong statement, showing us that the castle was, in the author’s opinion, a more domestic place in the 13th to 15th Centuries. He goes on to say that close to the castle the land much resembled a farm, while further afield the land was more reminiscent of a country estate. A defensive castle would be less likely to have its view constricted by farming buildings, and having vulnerable crops open to any attack. The account also states that a staff was hired, but not an army-style regiment, but “a chaplain, a gate-keeper, a porter and probably certain officials of the manor,” who would take on very strongly domestic roles within the place. This indicates that during this period, the Bishop made the castle into more of a palace than a defensive outpost. A lot of money was spent on various royal and religious visitors, including most monarchs between 1199 and 1625. Between 1470-75, Bishop Waynflete added, “the most impressive monument of this period … is the great brick additions.” This included a tower and hall, both of which appear to have increased living accommodation at the castle.

However, the source does allow for the defensive role at Farnham: the Bishop’s purse was regularly kept from overflowing by the maintenance of the armoury, and the castle’s main defences, which were kept fairly well preserved until the 16th Century, and the Tudor reign. It makes allowance for some evidence at the castle itself, noting that “the doorway to the north turret was chamfered and the hole for a drawbar can be seen.”

After this came the Tudor period, which, apart from being an age of great stability in England, brought the Reformation. This had a huge effect on the Castle, as the source states. One of the most important changes was that Farnham Castle lost its status as the home to a great officer of state (the Bishop obviously of little importance in a Roman Catholic court). This made it a lower priority for attack, and therefore lost its major offensive and defensive role.

Yet again though, this source has many disadvantages that mar its usefulness. Firstly, it is very vague, not fixing on any one detail for any amount of time, and not relating to physical evidence at the keep. Secondly, it is very brief. Encompassing 500 years into three stages means that there is a dramatic generalisation of the Castle attitude during the Middle Ages. However, it is reliable. The fact that it is used as the castle’s official guidebook shows this, as the National Trust is very particular about the texts it uses in its guidebooks. This is backed up by the author’s reputation as a local historian in the area. There is no evidence of a personal opinion – the extract seems well balanced. In summary, it shows the both sides of the castle’s character, but is very vague in doing so.

The third source is a section from ‘Farnham Castle, The Forgotten Years’ by a P. D. Brooks. This source focuses on the turrets and the work done on them between 1224 and 1399. The author makes a lot of reference to the maintenance of the turrets throughout the Middle Ages, but insists that this was done purely for the purposes of storage and accommodation,

“In later years the turrets probably housed the Bishop’s personal servants and clerks.”

He also asserts that the eye tends to rebuild the castle as a largely stone affair, which the castle was not, instead being topped with wooden rooms or buildings. This is the first reference made to perhaps the whole castle being like this, while other sources and my own hypothesis has shown that although this is feasible, it is not a popularly displayed theory.

In my opinion this is a more biased source, as it has a very straightforward perspective, leaning definitely on the domestic use of the East and West Turrets. It is very well researched, showing evidence from the Bishop’s (or ‘Pipe’) Rolls, and relates to other castles of the period, i.e. Stokesay Castle. However, the limited perspective makes this source less reliable than the ones that I have already studied.

Finally I come to the 1737 print of Farnham Castle, taken from P. D. Brook’s book. This source shows the castle in a panoramic view of the landscape. On first glance, it appears accurate, but very quickly it is noticeable that this is a very inaccurate source. The print is a present to the Bishop of Winchester at that time, Bishop Benjamin. This would insinuate that the print would be trying to show the Castle in its best light, which further inspection shows it is. The most glaring error in the print is the perspective. Having walked round the castle, I know that it is impossible for all four turrets to be seen at any one time, yet the print clearly depicts all four in view. Although the turrets are in line with their respective mural towers on the curtain wall, they are still very much out of perspective. The perspective also makes the keep seem square, which, from personal experience, I know it is not. If anything, it is fairly round, yet this is completely missed as a result of the changed view.

There are also a number of noticeable omissions. The first is the toilet chutes and their distinct black stains on the stonework, displayed in Picture 12. These are not visible at all, despite the fact that they should be well in view from our south-facing perspective. This lack of detail means that the engravers could have missed any number of important features in this manner. The fact that the print has been edited to taste so much leaves me in no doubt that this is a very unreliable source, from which very few conclusions could be safely made.

From the sources I can confirm my initial hypothesis that Farnham Castle and the Keep were designed not only to defend but also to house, throughout it’s active life. The sources agree that as England settled, the Castle evolved and became increasingly domestic rather than defensive, as it was originally. Although two of the sources are unreliable, the remaining two do not disagree with these findings. The Bishop’s Rolls briefly yet accurately record both defensive and domestic action at Farnham, while it’s guidebook makes it clear that the role of the castle did change between 1200 and the Civil War. P. D. Brooks insists that the Castle definitely had a domestic role, and despite the unreliability, this opinion does count for something. The 1737 print, however, is of little use; its inaccuracy making it unusable as a viable source.